Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With great respect to Mr. Ryan, it is appropriate because the question is on how it is coherent for us to be engaged in supporting the manufacturing of weaponry and arms, given that there is an explicit prohibition in the cluster munitions legislation on the State investing in the manufacture of explosives and munitions, and that we have a status of neutrality which Mr. Ryan would acknowledge. It strikes me that there are two points. There is the question of which aspect in terms of the multi-annual financial framework and of whether it has a legal basis for including this decision within it, and I still disagree with the Commission. There is then a separate question for Ireland. Why would Ireland, if we were concerned, simply say this does not count? It seems that caveat simply says this does not count when it has real implications. These explosives are going to land on somebody. Some of these weapons, as we now know, are definitely going to Israel, for example, from some of the manufacturers which are benefitting. On simply saying that it does not count, was there a consideration from Ireland to say we do not believe this should be done through the multi-annual financial framework, where it is difficult for us, but we would prefer if it was, for example, done as the European Peace Facility was done, as an off-budget measure? Did Ireland propose that this should be an off-budget measure, rather than be part of the multi-annual financial framework? Was that a proposal made by Ireland? Mr. Angley might comment.